Bhim Singhji v. Union of India

1 SCC 166Reported decision1981#18518 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Bhim Singhji v. Union of India

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Galgotia Books & Department Store Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/1076/2018HC Delhi28 Sept 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

…specifically so provide necessarily means that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the said Act were to prevail even over the provisions of the Sick Companies Act..." 135. In KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd. and Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 166, the effect of non-obstante clause in Section 32 of SICA on RDDBFI Act was examined by the Supreme Court, the latter enactment also containing non-obstante clause under Section 34(1). While concluding that the objective of the two enactments is entirely different, and observing that “the purpose of one is to provide ameliorative measures for…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8 vs. Saldi Chits Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/143/2018HC Delhi09 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 25Section 4Section 42Section 5Section 8Section 9

…specifically so provide necessarily means that the Legislature intended that the provisions of the said Act were to prevail even over the provisions of the Sick Companies Act..." 135. In KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd. and Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 166, the effect of non-obstante clause in Section 32 of SICA on RDDBFI Act was examined by the Supreme Court, the latter enactment also containing non-obstante clause under Section 34(1). While concluding that the objective of the two enactments is entirely different, and observing that “the purpose of one is to provide ameliorative measures for…

Wipro Ltd vs. Asst. Collector of Customs

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

C.A. No.-009766-009775 - 2003Supreme Court16 Apr 2015
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 156Section 22

…limit. We fail to understand how a restriction on transfer of such land is going to carry out any purpose of the Act. We are fortified in taking such view by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 whereby sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban of urbanisable land with a building or a portion only of such building which was within the ceiling area. The provision impugned therein imposed a restriction on tr…

Wipro Ltd vs. Asst. Collector of Customs

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

C.A. No.-009766-009775 - 2003Supreme Court16 Apr 2015
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 156Section 22

…limit. We fail to understand how a restriction on transfer of such land is going to carry out any purpose of the Act. We are fortified in taking such view by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 whereby sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban of urbanisable land with a building or a portion only of such building which was within the ceiling area. The provision impugned therein imposed a restriction on tr…

Bhim Singhji v. Union of India (1 SCC 166) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax